Comments on: Yamal FOI Sheds New Light on Flawed Datahttps://climateaudit.org/2012/05/06/yamal-foi-sheds-new-light-on-flawed-data/
by Steve McIntyreThu, 08 Dec 2016 12:56:06 +0000hourly1http://wordpress.com/By: Frederick Colbournehttps://climateaudit.org/2012/05/06/yamal-foi-sheds-new-light-on-flawed-data/#comment-719611
Sun, 17 Aug 2014 16:47:27 +0000http://climateaudit.org/?p=15956#comment-719611The leaked e-mails show that the Russian researcher who collected the tree-ring data observed that the trees line had not moved north as would be expected if climate warming had occurred.

I apologize for delay with reply. Below is short information about state of Yamal work. Samples from 2,172 subfossil larches (appr. 95% of all samples), spruces (5%) and birches (solitary finding) have been collected within a region centered on about 67030’N, 70000’E at the southern part of Yamal Peninsula. All of them have been measured.
[SNIP except for the last sentence]
There are no evidences of moving polar timberline to the north during last century.

]]>By: Koch, MGhttps://climateaudit.org/2012/05/06/yamal-foi-sheds-new-light-on-flawed-data/#comment-687748
Mon, 21 Jul 2014 08:44:51 +0000http://climateaudit.org/?p=15956#comment-687748I would like to send a very specific comment to Steve McIntyre, mainly for his and McKitrick’s eyes. To which e-mail address shall I send it?

It is about the real roots of the fancied AGW idea in Sweden, from 1896 to the 1950s (Arrhenius, Bolin, Strong, UNEP, IPCC, Mann-made AGW (HS!) etc, later Pachauri, several Nobel prizes, and some early, meanwhile forgotten opponents (as Giaever, Philander, Siegbahn, Idso, Baliunas, Soon, Seitz, Zichichi, Fairbridge, the Danish and 30 other solarists, paleogeologists, speleologists and astrophysicists, who will go on to merciless dispel the last clouds around all those sobering facts which already some years ago have turned the AGW into an HGC. But established dogms die hard.

I could follow the unstoppable growth of the collective giga-error step by step for more than 40 years by now – in one of the most AGW compliant countries in the World – Sweden. Its uncritical engagement took the lead in the 1970s and was the glue for the heated AGW frenzy, and produced in Bert Bolin the vault stone (one could say ‘the ideologiucal Higgs boson’, för the greatest collective giga-error of mankind since humans thought they were intentionally created by a good-natured god.

The fancied AGW hypothesis presented a sort of pseudo-scientific conundrum to the academic world, like another theodicy problem, the ‘threatening, unprecedented and anthropogenic’ climate catastrophe gnawing its way through the roots of Yggdrasil.

I’m closing a comprehensive book about the way the primary error took through the windlings of the human brain and unmask the both typical and successful tricks it used – and finally even try to hamper the chronic disinformation becoming instrumental and finally powerful when recycled ad vomitum by pompous and pretentious, high and hollow, in fact specious words in incessant iterations from clueless authorities in media and education. Many merited scientists have in own publications confronted the AGW doctrine with innumerable sobering – and, indeed, testable – facts.

But that – flabbergasting enough – hasn’t yet provided the compelling, engaging and really penetrative power one could have expected after the first 100 books about the issue.* The doctrine was nevertheless spread, strengthened, deepened, widened, and hardened by an alleged, from early on fancied “consensus” and well-known spin techniques: group think (), group polarization (Cas Sunstein), mind guards, money, money, money (funding & sponsoring, carreer & fame), abused authority and the permanant bias of ‘wishful or avoiding thinking’, nourished by emotions, zeal, fears, and an abhorrent pseudo-scientific confusion. (“Saving the Earth” is a truly splendid motivation.)

I have been working on this issue since the year 1991, but long hesitated to publish . While preparing the didactical structure of such an attempt of a – hopefully Gordic – strike through the accumulated knot of disinformation and dogmatic preoccupation I came (in 2004) across a hopefully effective method to unveil the bad and wrong science used by the IPCC to build its castle in the air of scientific nonsense. It should be easy to show its meringue feet in a so simple manner – compellingly plausible – that even the layman can’t avoid any longer to understand that he has been cheated by the IPCC to follow its derailed logics into the ‘Wonderland’ of an impending – not man-made, but Mann-made – mega-disaster.

Before publishing this pivotal analysis of unquestionable, easily accessible data, I want to beg Ross McKitrik and Steve McIntyre to ckeck it (from the view point of a mathematician) and give me ‘green light’ for it. In so case I would like to let at least 2 blogs publish it simultaneously: WUWT, Climate Audit and/or McKitrick (if their authors like it).

If you want to see this short text (the book itself will be rather voluminous) in advance of its publication in a major climate book, please let me know – and I will send it to you as a separate file of some 4-5 pages.

(Of course, I would even be very grateful if someone could give me a hint, if he anywhere has read anything using the same idea and criteria as I do. After having read a lot through roughly 23 years, I would be surprized, but should know about it!)

Yours sincerely Michael G Koch

PS 1: If McIntyre and McKitrick agree to the idea, I would like so sent it for comment and as information even to some other participants of the AGW discussions, whose sagacious contributions I always have read with great benefit, e.g., (1) the 3 Idsos, (2) Baliunas & Soon, (3) Nigel Calder, (4) John David Lewis, (5) EM Smith, (6) Watts & D’Aleo, (7) Lubos Motl, (8) Richard Lindzen, (9) Henrik Svensmark, (l0) Lord Chr Monckton, (11) Roy Spencer, and (12) Nir Shaviv. You may have some of their actual e-mail addresses? (That could save much of my time, living here under a stone in the Swedish forest. In my next mail to you I will enclose my c v. )

PS 2: Ross, may I ask you to check and correct my sub-optimal English? (Only a few sentences) I’m painfully aware of the disturbing fact that it isn’t my mother language. I would very much like to be able to write in the style of your marvellous TBS, but that will have to wait for another life…

]]>By: Evasions and Fantasy at Real Climate « Climate Audithttps://climateaudit.org/2012/05/06/yamal-foi-sheds-new-light-on-flawed-data/#comment-426114
Wed, 10 Jul 2013 16:29:45 +0000http://climateaudit.org/?p=15956#comment-426114[…] pointing out that Briffa et al’s results would be different from what McIntyre had put up (on May 6 2012) (as the figure below demonstrates), and then using a calculation made on May 15 2012 to claim I […]
]]>By: CRU Abandons Yamal Superstick « Climate Audithttps://climateaudit.org/2012/05/06/yamal-foi-sheds-new-light-on-flawed-data/#comment-425238
Tue, 02 Jul 2013 14:46:53 +0000http://climateaudit.org/?p=15956#comment-425238[…] 4 on) to their Yamal post of May 11, which chronologically was screeching in fury at my post of May 6 about regional reconstructions.) The figure below compares the Briffa superstick to the CA […]
]]>By: Skiphilhttps://climateaudit.org/2012/05/06/yamal-foi-sheds-new-light-on-flawed-data/#comment-401943
Wed, 27 Feb 2013 18:25:56 +0000http://climateaudit.org/?p=15956#comment-401943What a relief! I find that Briffa and Osborn have been busy with another grant that gets them to March 2013, so we can be confident that all will be cleared up soon:

Well worth a read to consider in light of recent problems over UEA, Muir Russell, FOI evasions, etc.

]]>By: Climate variability in Northern Europe « it's in my headhttps://climateaudit.org/2012/05/06/yamal-foi-sheds-new-light-on-flawed-data/#comment-375391
Mon, 19 Nov 2012 13:00:43 +0000http://climateaudit.org/?p=15956#comment-375391[…] the more interesting ones. This is an updated reconstruction by Briffa, famous for having authored one of the hockey sticks used by the IPCC. Apparently the stick has now […]
]]>By: Michael Painterhttps://climateaudit.org/2012/05/06/yamal-foi-sheds-new-light-on-flawed-data/#comment-369674
Mon, 05 Nov 2012 14:15:25 +0000http://climateaudit.org/?p=15956#comment-369674Hi Jim, I wonder if you would share with us your opinion of Skeptical Science, in terms of its reliability, and whether you endorse or disapprove of John Cook’s practices there.
]]>By: Skiphilhttps://climateaudit.org/2012/05/06/yamal-foi-sheds-new-light-on-flawed-data/#comment-369462
Mon, 05 Nov 2012 03:32:03 +0000http://climateaudit.org/?p=15956#comment-369462Re: Steve McIntyre (May 12 20:27),

btw, Pincher maintains that it was Hollis not Philby who was sent to debrief Gouzenko, and that Hollis provided a highly deceptive account of Gouzenko’s character and information, in order to discredit Gouzenko with MI5 and MI6. Gouzenko’s defection should have led to the unmasking of Soviet GRU mole ‘Elli’ (later thought to be Hollis according to both Peter Wright and Chapman Pincher), but the report that came back to MI5 and MI6 undermined investigation of relevant leads.

“It was Hollis’s associate, the spy Philby, who suggested that Hollis should be the officer sent to interrogate Gouzenko. If Hollis was Elli, it was urgently in his and the Soviet interests that he should handle and manipulate the case.”